Doe K.N. vs. Orangewood Academy

demurrer to the remainder of Plaintiff’s SAC is sustained. Thus, there is currently no valid basis for declaratory relief. And Plaintiff’s Opposition states, “The plaintiff waives the request for injunctive relief.” (Opp. at 25:2.)

The demurrer to this cause of action is sustained with leave to amend.

On a demurrer, a court determines whether the complaint states facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. If the court sustains the demurrer, it must decide whether to grant leave to amend. Leave to amend should be granted if there is a reasonable possibility that the defect can be cured by amendment. Plaintiff has the burden of proving that there is a reasonable possibility that the defect can be cured by amendment. (Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318.)

This is the first pleadings challenge on which the Court has ruled. Thus, the Court grants Plaintiff leave to amend.

Moving Defendants shall file and serve notice of this ruling. 6

7 Doe K.N. vs. The motion to strike by Southeastern California Conference of Seventh-Day Orangewood Adventists dba Orangewood Academy (“SCC”) to the second amended Academy complaint (“SAC”) by Plaintiff Jane Doe K.N. is GRANTED without prejudice to Plaintiff’s requesting leave to amend in the future to allege punitive damages in compliance with Code of Civil Procedure section 425.14.

The court makes no substantive findings as to whether or not future leave will be granted and/or whether or not future leave is proper, but simply clarifies that this ruling has no bearing on Plaintiff’s ability to seek leave to amend to allege punitive damages in the future.

A motion to strike punitive damages is properly granted where a plaintiff does not state a prima facie claim for punitive damages, including allegations that defendant is guilty of oppression, fraud or malice. (Turman v. Turning Point of Cent. California, Inc. (2010) 191 Cal.App.4th 53, 63; Cal. Civ. Code § 3294(a).)

Defendant SCC argues that Plaintiff has failed to sufficiently allege the requirements of section 425.14, which states:

“No claim for punitive or exemplary damages against a religious corporation or religious corporation sole shall be included in a complaint or other pleading unless the court enters an order allowing an amended pleading that includes such a claim to be filed.” The court may allow the filing of an amended pleading claiming punitive or exemplary damages on a motion by the party seeking the amended pleading and upon a finding, on the basis of the supporting and opposing affidavits presented, that the plaintiff has established 16

evidence which substantiates that the plaintiff will meet the clear and convincing standard of proof under Section 3294 of the Civil Code.”

(Code Civ. Proc. § 425.14).

Plaintiff filed a notice of non-opposition, contending that Plaintiff does not oppose granting SCC’s motion to strike at this time. However, Plaintiff argues it has in the process of gathering declarations to obtain evidence sufficient to comply with section 425.14 and should be given the opportunity in the future to amend to allege compliance.

Given Plaintiff’s non-opposition and, therefore, implied concession that the SAC, as currently pled, does not comply with section 425.14, the motion is GRANTED.

The Case Management Conference is continued to December 03, 2026 at 09:00 am in Department C10.

Moving Defendant to give notice. 8 Aimar vs. LA The demurrer by Defendant Bumble Roofing of LA, LLC (“Bumble 110”) to Roofing & Builder the first through sixth causes of action by Plaintiffs David Aimar and Theresa Group, Inc. Golden are OVERRULED.

Legal Standard on Demurrer

A demurrer presents an issue of law regarding the sufficiency of the allegations set forth in the complaint. (Lambert v. Carneghi (2008) 158 Cal.App.4th 1120, 1126.) The challenge is limited to the “four corners” of the pleading (which includes exhibits attached and incorporated therein) or from matters outside the pleading which are judicially noticeable under Evidence Code §§ 451 or 452. Although California courts take a liberal view of inartfully drawn complaints, it remains essential that a complaint set forth the actionable facts relied upon with sufficient precision to inform the defendant of what plaintiff is complaining, and what remedies are being sought. (Leek v. Cooper (2011) 194 Cal.App.4th 399, 413.)

On demurrer, a complaint must be liberally construed. (Code Civ. Proc., § 452; Stevens v. Superior Court (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 594, 601.) All material facts properly pleaded, and reasonable inferences, must be accepted as true. (Aubry v. Tri-City Hospital Dist. (1992) 2 Cal.4th 962, 966-67.)

A pleading is adequate if it contains a reasonably precise statement of the ultimate facts, in ordinary and concise language, and with sufficient detail to acquaint a defendant with the nature, source and extent of the claim. The degree of detail required depends on the extent to which the defendant in fairness needs such detail which can be conveniently provided by the plaintiff. Less particularity is required when the defendant ought to have co-extensive or superior knowledge of the facts. Under normal circumstances, there is no need for specificity in pleading evidentiary facts. However, bare conclusions of law are insufficient. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 425.10(a), 459; Doe v. City of Los 17